Logical Fallacies in an Argument:

From the use of gross generalizations (i.e., “poor people are lazy”) to the reliance on self-evident logic (i.e., “hard work builds success”), there are many ways to make errors in reasoning when arguing. Scientists call these errors “logical fallacies.” Let’s examine some types of flawed reasoning below. As you read through these categories, you might be alarmed at how many you recognize from your own experiences with writing this semester.

1. False Equivalence: False Equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent or equally meritorious when in fact they are not. This occurs when an argument is positioned as a binary and one, often unscientific side is set as the converse or rejection of a scientifically demonstrated principle. When this occurs, that secondary position is overly elevated in status. In simple English -- we often assume that every issue has two equivalent sides. As an example, imagine you’re in a debate re: the geometry of the earth. One side asserts, “circular” and the other side asserts, “flat.” Should we listen equally to both sides? If we do, we assign a False Equivalence to the flat camp. False equivalencies are often seen in the debate over global warming and other politicized issues. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy In the case of your papers, many of you used the undefined variable of “healthy” or ”unhealthy” to define GMO’s – however, even when you define “unhealthy” as “reduced Vitamin A soy” or “high fat beef” – you create a false equivalence because you leave out all the potential good by negating “higher yield rates” “lower costs for 3rd world nations” – so, what, if any, is the technical formula for weighing “good” against “bad” factors?

2. Arguments from popularity or rumor (also called “bandwagon appeals”)—Arguments that begin with or, in many of your papers overtly suggest, “as we all know...” While, none of you wrote this directly in your papers, it’s embedded throughout. Please take another look! Also, arguments that rely on secondhand stories as “evidence” fall into this category of fallacy. Example: If one place on the internet states it, there’s a good chance there’s some truth in it. So, why not just quote it and move on…

3. Circular reasoning: Using the bias from one’s primary assumptions as the foundation for later assertion. Example: Since GMOs are engineered, they are not natural. Consequently, natural products are healthier for human consumption. Therefore, “GMO’s are not healthy.”

4. The absolutist, “you can’t refute TRUTH fallacy”: A typical example might include, The higher-power argument: i.e., arguments that begin with, “studies” “The bible,” “Wikipedia,” or “people” say... or those fallacies that use terms like “truth” or absolutist language like “all”, “none”, “never”, or “every”. There is absolutist terminology all over your papers. Much of it is just implied with causative terms like “is” between variables. Again, please take another look! By appealing to an absolute or supreme truth, the writer is suggesting that her/his position can’t (or doesn’t need to be) challenged—therefore, it can’t be contradicted. This subtle use of language presents real hubris in a college paper!

5. Arguments by deduction: So many of you did this!!! Arguments that predict outcomes based on past experience. Example. “As more jobs go overseas, Americans will continue to lose job security in America.” Does one automatically cause the other simply because it occurred in the past? Please go back and find these examples in your work!!

6. Argument by character assassination: (also called “ad hominem”): Ex. Abortion-rights advocates are often termed “baby killers” by their opponents---Pro-life advocates are habitually demonized as “religious fanatics”. Think about how debates over health care, abortion, politics, religion, and gun rights tend to breed hostility and conflict by the way we name sides. Arguments by character assassination typically begin with naming the other side with terms that demonize, by overly generalizing or prescribing intent within the name. I saw a LOT of this in your papers where you used overly positive/negative terminology to define, and thereby through fallacy defend/debase, GMOs.

7. The pseudoscience argument: (This is the most common one that I found in your work). Arguments that use scientific terms or concepts with an indifference to the facts to suggest authority. Arguments that begin with a generic, “studies show” are typically pseudoscientific. But, I saw something MUCH more subtle and insidious in your work—something numerical (i.e., implied statistics). Even though we already discussed this, it’s still there—subtly beneath the surface with obvious words like “majority, highly, often, generally, probably,” but, with less obvious terms like, “tend, expected, typically,” and countless others.

8. Paralipsis: The leaving out of key information. In rhetorical studies, this usually implies that the writer/speaker does this on purpose to trick the audience. This is seen as a real ethical violation. You do something worse. That is, many of you do this as a series of unconscious logic jumps by not doing enough reading and thereby assuming an erroneous logic sequence that fails to detail each step.

9. Bandwagon Arguments: Arguments that often begin with, “as we all know” or rely on secondhand stories as evidence or the social pressure of conformity to popular opinion for agreement. The assumption inherent to bandwagon arguments is that: If people are talking about it, there must be some truth in it. Example: “It’s the goal of every good citizen to support our troops. If you don’t, you’re un-American.”

10. The pseudoscience argument: This is simply a variation of the bandwagon fallacy. Pseudoscience arguments use scientific terms or concepts in a general or incorrect way to suggest authority.

Example: Arguments that begin with, “studies show” or those that use terms like, “majority, generally, all, none, or usually” but have no specific studies detailed or statistics cited are typically pseudoscientific.

11. Slippery Slope: These are arguments that engender fear by suggesting that a singular event will lead to an outbreak of even worse events. Example: If we give amnesty to illegal immigrants, what’s to stop them from taking all our jobs?

12. Biological, Natural, or Genetic Fallacy: This type of fallacy asserts that things are the way they are because of their nature, background, or origins. Example: America is the greatest nation on earth because of the liberties afforded within our constitution.

13. Over or “hyper”-simplification: These are conclusions based on assumption, rushed analysis, self-evident logic, generalizing, or a trivializing of the facts. Example: Even though I’ve never met Susan, I know people just like her and can tell you for sure that she’s not to be trusted.

14. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Latin for, “because one thing follows another, the second thing was caused by the first.” In mathematics (e.g., statistics) we call this correlation w/o causation. Example: I’ve always had good fortune in life because I’ve played by the rules.

15. The false-binary choice (i.e., either/or): The suggestion that there are only 2 sides to, or ways of seeing something. Examples: • Either you’re with me or against me. • If you love America, then you support the President or the Army’s mission.

16. Moral Equivalence: This is a way of generalizing from a trivial wrongdoing to a major ethical break. Example: By withholding the truth, you’re no better than a common criminal.

17. Straw Man: This is a way of exaggerating or over simplifying an opposing viewpoint. The goal of the straw man argument is to attack an assumption within an argument. Example: Those who support welfare and other entitlement programs have a socialist agenda for America. 18. Red Herring: This is a deceptive and intentionally misleading tactic used to deflect, refocus, or altogether avoid dealing with the argument at hand. Example: While the uses of fossil fuels may pollute the environment, our economy would fail if we suddenly shut off the spigot.

Homework:

Part I: Go to the following websites: www.MSNBC.com www.FOXNEWS.com www.NPR.org

On each site, find one article that deals with the president election or, anything peripherally related. Read the three articles. Make a quick bibliography by copying/pasting the URLs into your HW. Find 5-10 examples of “logical fallacies” in each article and list them after your bib. Use the categories above to name each fallacy and how it’s operating, Do a 10-minute freewrite explaining what you learned (not, what you did). Feel free to do this w/a partner.

Part II: Spend the day listening closely to the subtle and overt arguments made by your friends, parents, teachers, and others. Write down the different styles of argument that you hear, using the list of “logical fallacies” above. Based on what you heard, write down the most absurd fallacy you encountered.

1. Define the arguer’s two variables 2. Define the arguer’s fulcrum and/or what epistemology the arguer uses to support the claim 3. Define what type of fallacy was used 4. Discuss why you think this individual makes or relies on this form of fallacy in building an argument